When will 'crowdsourcing' NOT work?

This idea of seeking and collaborating with the community to seek solutions to issues and problems are back in vogue, what with the availability of web tools and ubiquitous digital connectivity that makes such an endeavour no longer the sole domain of the experts, or those presumed to be experts.

Wikipedia defines crowdsourcing as 'the act of sourcing tasks traditionally performed by specific individuals to an undefined large group of people or community (crowd) through an open call.'

Picture taken from: http://bit.ly/pGzjO0 

But with all the hoopla about the effectiveness of crowdsourcing, I do think that just like in most tools, there are reasonable limitations to leveraging on it as a hammer to nail in your problems. Perhaps these 5 are good key points of consideration for a start:

1. Size of crowd: Statistical textbooks dictates that there is a minimum amount of size that a sample should be taken from in order to validate any data obtained. Similarly, there ought to be a minimum sample size of sorts for a crowdsourcing endeavour to be deemed effective in its execution, notwithstanding its results, which I will point out a little later. And with the ease of digital connectivity, this might be one of the least hurdles that a crowdsourcer (versus the crowdsourcee) has to worry about, unless the specification calls for a certain degree of confidentiality, and the likes.
2. Levels of expertise: Perhaps one main motivation for a crowdsourcer to seek ideas from the public is the trust that he has with regards to the quality of the ideas and proposals that he would get. Although debatable, I do think that there ought to be some minimum level of cognitive familiarity with the issues or problems that are being crowdsourced. Though there is no necessity for all members participating in the crowdsourcing activity to be experts in that specific given field, there is perhaps a need for one to be at least intellectually aware of the issues at hand, and perhaps be able to give alternative ideas/proposals, bearing in mind the main objectives of the exercise. Within the community of crowdsourcees, there should also be that level of respect for alternative viewpoints, if well-justified and logical in its arguments. And in fact having multiple experts should be the order of the day, due to perhaps the ability for such a community to be able to enrich the crowdsourcing activity, much like how perhaps, the design firm IDEO, equips her design team for any design projects that she embarks on.
3. Motivation to contribute: At a personal level, although much have talked about crowdsourcing, but the motivation for one to participate in such an activity must also be something that a crowdsourcer be mindful of. Motivation, though not necessarily in the forms of something tangible, is a necessary part of the human natural psyche to act or do something, and likewise, there should be some carrot dangled for participation. A few models and sites are already available that leverages on some points/rewards system for contributors, but perhaps more could be done to attract participants to assist in contributing issues, especially of the social kind. Altruistic reasons aside, sometimes the economics of ideas and expert groups do not necessarily come in cheaply either.
4. Independence of contributors: Perhaps this is one of the primary hurdle that a crowdsourcer should look at in greater details. No doubt one couldn't really be placing in specifications to dictate the level of independence of the crowdsourcee in the whole scheme of things, but having respondents that do have a direct bearing on the outcome of the exercise is not necessarily a bad thing either. But of course certain guidelines and some degree of awareness should be put in place to create that level of 'independence of ideas' regardless of your dependency of the outcome of such an exercise.
5. Follow-Ups: Lastly, and perhaps more importantly, is the follow-up activities that such an exercise would entail after the dust has settled. Who would do the following-up? What is the timeline for such follow-up activities? What ideas or proposals would be followed-through, and which ones would be shelved or KIV'ed until further notice? Transparency, to a certain degree, is indeed the order of the day, especially to crowdsourcees, to give that level of affirmation that something is being done about their proposals. And this is especially important if the issues at hand are something that the respondents are directly being impacted upon, or if the crowdsourcer is looking at more of such activities in the future.

When culture limits design: iTunifying our thoughts and ideas

Graphic by Irfan Darian (2011)

This thought occur to me when I was preparing my learning materials for my upcoming trip in a few months time. And the irony that the most innovative nation in the world comes from a country that is not really cultured, in an Asian sort of way, did not surprised me too.

But what I would really like to uncover over here is the thought that perhaps, the culture that we were brought up in, is indeed a key limiting element of how we adopt design thinking. Could this be so? Alternatively, could the absence of such be a good way for a race or a country to be more adaptable to design thinking?

I've always wondered where are the scientific discoveries of my own race, when the other 2 major races over here are historically brimmed with technological achievements throughout their civilization. The Chinese have their thousands of years of inventions, artistic pieces, technological achievements as well as their architectural marvels. Similarly the Indians too have their rich history to thank for for showcasing their inventions and other worldly marvels. But I do find these technological marvels lacking, or sadly, almost non-existent, in my community's history. Except for perhaps a culture of artistic and related works, the other aspects are seemingly not mentioned, or perhaps if they do, are not showcased in the way that it should be showcased...publicly!

Which somehow just made me come to a conclusion. Could the culture of being humble, showing respect to even undeserving leaders, being deceitful, and other racial stereotypical characteristics be the limiter towards developing our very own design thinking? And could this be then THE thing that limits our own growth as a society, or is slowing us down? I'm not condoning that we turn our backs to our culture totally, but I thought some things would just have to be more....in tune with the times. Could we really afford to be talking about how much is an appropriate 'gift' (hantaran) to a bride, when the whole point of having that has already been clarified in a religious context. I think more than just about looking at the cultural details, could we even begin to start to question some of these practices? Perhaps not in a confrontational sort of way, but rational, logical and even with an amount of big picture/deep thinking thrown in for good measure.

In a more non-communal context, could the culture then in itself be something that we can tweak further? These culture of being accepting, of showing affirmation of successful failures, and of celebrating every single pound of success even more! And to add further, building an eco-system of sorts that would allow for such thinking to sprout and flourish? Could we then iTunify the entire process and experience? So it is no longer about having a silo system of buying, storing and playing music, but the whole experience of buying, storing, playing, seeking comments, ranking, having customised playlists and downloading music and media. If we could just iTunify these whole thinking into such a singular system, where instead of music, the commodity is now thoughts and ideas, wouldn't we then be able to move the community and society ahead? Perhaps...?